The Blais Commission (Blais) recently released its report on pay for politicians. While we applaud the proposed move to a fully taxable and transparent salary for MPs, we deplore their hypocritical approach to MP Pension Reform.

Instead of abolishing the gold-plated pension plan, Blais recommends cosmetic changes or a group RRSP scheme for those MPs who wish to opt out. Therefore, if you don't like the rich plan, a dietary option is available.

Blais engages in a little parlor magic by tinkering with accrual and contribution rates to provide the illusion that changes will be made to the current plan. But we've looked beyond this sleight of hand only to discover that the modified plan remains as rich as ever.

Base pension amounts for MPs are calculated by averaging the wage of their best six consecutive years in office and multiplying by the accrual rate and then by the number of years of service. These amounts are also indexed for inflation and can be collected at age 55.

Currently, the accrual rate is 4% and the contribution rate is 9% on a base salary of $64,400. Blais recommends that the accrual rate drop to 2.5% and the contribution rate decrease to 5.5%, but these factors are to be applied to the proposed salary of $106,010. And if you happen to serve as a minister, you can still add your ministerial top-up of $46,645 to your salary which is included in pension calculations.

What does it all mean Under the current plan, a backbench MP elected in 1993 who sits for six years will be entitled to an annual base pension of $15,456 per year. For a cabinet minister, the annual amount jumps to $26,650. Under the Blais commission scenario, this same backbench MP will receive an annual base of pension $15,900. The cabinet minister $22,898.

Yet most shockingly, the current maximum annual defined an MP can receive is $48,300. If the Blais recommendations are adopted, this amount jumps to $74,200. Still looks pretty gold-plated to us. And in an attempt to silence long-standing critics of the MP pension plan, Blais has thrown them in a bone in the form of a self-funding, matching contribution group RRSP scheme.

The group RRSP scheme is a great idea and one that we have fought for during the past five years. But what incentive do people like Jean Charest and Shelia Copps have to opt out of their multi-million dollar payouts in favour of this fairer option None, absolutely zilcho!

Instead of pension reform we have a pension buffet. This should have been expected when the government appointed two former politicians and a career bureaucrat to examine this issue.

Indeed their bias against real pension reform shows in their report when they discuss the merits of approaches to pension reform undertaken in the provinces of Alberta, BC, and Ontario. In Alberta, no pensions are provided while BC and Ontario abolished their generous schemes for parliamentarians in favour of group RRSP schemes.

The Blais Commission contends that "this is a somewhat radical approach." Radical my foot. Try fair, try long overdue. And given the fact that only 40% of Canadian private sector workers are fortunate enough to participate in pension plans, the symbolism of our parliamentarians as they duck this issue is not lost on taxpayers.

Our MPs have just hiked our CPP premiums by 73% so we can pay more to get less in our retirement and they don't have the courage to abolish their own guaranteed retirement lottery. Is it any wonder that Canadians hold them in such low esteem